Proposal 4: Improving home care or union swindle?

State ballot Proposal 4 supporters say it will improve the quality and keep down the cost of home care for seniors and the disabled, while foes call it a disguised attempt to hijack the constitution to legitimize illegal collective bargaining.

Proposal 4, appearing on the Nov. 6 ballot, would amend the state constitution regarding about 48,000 home-care workers, most often a family member or relative of the disabled or elderly patient, who is paid from the patient’s Medicaid or Medicare benefits.

Called the Keep Home Care a Safe Choice, proponents say it would encourage patients to use home care instead of more expensive nursing-home care, and maintain care quality.

Advertisement

It is backed by union groups, many in the clergy, law enforcement, and disabled persons and senior citizen advocacy groups. The 550,000 signatures placing it on the ballot were submitted by Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care.

“It will allow seniors and persons with disabilities the choice to direct their own care while remaining healthy and independent in their own homes, instead of forcing them into expensive nursing homes or other institutions,” said Norm DeLisle, executive director of the Michigan Disability Rights Coalition and co-chair of CAQC.

Dohn Hoyle, CAQC co-chair, said the key to the proposal is reviving a registry of home care workers that allowed for screening, training and compensation for caretakers. Defunded by the state Legislature earlier this year, the registry is currently “limping along,” Hoyle said.

The measure would set up a state-funded agency -- the Michigan Quality Home Care Council -- that would maintain the registry, allowing background checks and training of home-care workers. It would provide financial management help for patients.

The registry had cost about $500,000 year to maintain, but that was offset by $1.1 million in savings over four years in reduced jobless benefits.

Proposal foes say its real intent is being masked. It would guarantee the continuation of what they say is the illegitimate collective bargaining of the home care workers, represented by the Service Employees International Union.

“They (supporters) are using the constitution to whitewash a sordid history,” said Patrick Wright, a senior legal analyst of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which opposes the measure. “We think this is a money grab.”

Foes decried the development seven years ago when home care workers seven years ago were guaranteed the workers’ right to collectively bargain by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission, in a scheme by former Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the SEIU; the MERC declared them public employees even though they didn’t meet the state’s own definition of public employees. In 2005, 88 percent of the approximately 8,000 ballots (among about 48,000 workers) approved the SEIU to represent workers.

The SEIU has received $6 million per year in union dues, a windfall, foes say, by collecting 2.75 percent from the patients’ government checks.

Robert and Patricia Haynes of Macomb Township, who care for their two adult children afflicted with cerebral palsy, said they weren’t aware of the election and would have voted no because they have no need for a union.

“We were forced into this union pretty much without our knowledge,” Haynes said.

Even though they opted out, they must pay a state-required “representative fee,” about two-thirds of the union dues, about $30 per month, he said.

Workers in most counties earn slightly above the $7.40 per hour minimum wage, about $8 per hour. Hoyle said many workers before unionization were improperly earning below minimum wage, about $5 per hour.

Opponents -- backed by the Citizens Research Council -- contend operation of the registry and related benefits can be accomplished without the amendment through the federal Home Help Program since the program is funded by Medicaid and Medicare.

Since most of the approximately 53,000 workers are family members, relatives or friends – 80 percent, according to the Anderson Economic Group -- the registry often isn’t needed, opponents say. “It doesn’t apply to us,” Haynes said.

Lawmakers also tried to eliminate the unionization by passing Public Act 76, supported by Gov. Rick Snyder. But supporters gained a federal judge’s ruling that declared the unionization legal for the time-being because it resulted from a contract between two government agencies – one of them the Department of Community Health. That contract, however, is set to expire next February.

Hoyle said the workers deserve to be represented, pointing out they “overwhelmingly” OK’d unionization.

He pointed out significant cost savings of caring for someone in their home instead of institutionalizing them. It costs $4,800 in Medicaid funds per year to provide a patient with home care compared with $52,000 per year for those in nursing homes, according to Anderson.

Wright noted, however, that unionization of home care workers has failed to increase the number of patients. In the three years prior to the 2005 unionization, there was an average of 53,522 patients. In 2010, there was virtually no change, 53,516 patients, officials said.

Hoyle countered that studies show home care is on the rise due to aging baby boomers.

The CRC suggests a “voter-initiated law” or a “referendum” on PA 76 may provide a better option. “Voters interested in re-establishing (the council) should thoughtfully consider whether a constitutional amendment is the best approach to this issue,” it says.